🧾 The committee’s context:
During the committee meeting, several councillors expressed serious concerns about the sustainability of the Beechlands Road proposal — particularly the walking distance to amenities, pedestrian access, and infrastructure strain. In response, the Chief Planning Officer repeatedly referenced previous appeal outcomes (e.g. in Four Marks, 2024–2025) and advised councillors to “keep in mind” that similar refusals had been overturned.
This had the effect of redirecting attention away from the site-specific planning harms, and instead shifting the rationale toward fear of appeal, rather than an objective assessment of the application’s actual merits.
The recording of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday, 20th March 2025 at 6:00 PM can be viewed online by following the ‘Watch Online‘ link provided in the meeting agenda.
🧩 Why this is a potential ground for Judicial Review:
⚖️ 1. Procedural Impropriety – Improper Officer Influence
Planning officers are permitted to advise councillors, but must not pressure, lead, or direct their decisions.
When an officer uses appeal outcomes to counter material concerns (like poor sustainability or infrastructure), it may distort the neutrality of the decision-making environment and undermine lawful judgment.
⚖️ 2. Misdirection – Substituting Legal Advice for Planning Judgment
Councillors are required by law to weigh harms and benefits based on the specific site and current evidence.
Relying on unrelated appeals, especially when those decisions were not directly applicable, removes the legal obligation to evaluate the present case on its own merits. This amounts to legal misdirection.
The recording of the Planning Committee meeting held on Thursday, 20th March 2025 at 6:00 PM can be viewed online by following the ‘Watch Online‘ link provided in the meeting agenda.
✅ Supporting Quotes & Policy:
💬 RTPI’s Code of Conduct (Royal Town Planning Institute)
Chartered Town Planners must provide professional, honest, and impartial advice to clients and decision-makers.
If a Chief Planning Officer presented advice that was not impartial — particularly where they dismissed concerns or implied that councillors should approve based on external pressure — that could arguably breach professional expectations.
🧷 R (Wright) v Resilient Energy [2014] EWHC 3136 (Admin)
Transparency and fairness must characterise the entire process by which decisions are reached.
✅ Why it matters:
If councillors raise concerns, and officers respond in a way that discourages discussion or shuts down valid objections (especially with appeal fear), it can breach fairness.
🧷 R (Smech Properties Ltd) v Runnymede BC [2016] EWHC 2512 (Admin)
The exercise of planning judgment cannot be lawfully replaced by a desire to avoid appeal costs.
✅ Why it matters:
If the officer encourages approval to avoid appeal risk — even subtly — and the committee follows that advice instead of conducting its own balancing, it is legally defective.
🧷 NPPF Paragraph 38
Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
✅ Why it matters:
Approval is not mandatory under the tilted balance — and only applies if harms do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh benefits. Officer advice that implies inevitability (e.g. “we’ll lose anyway”) is misleading under the NPPF.
🧷 Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) – Paragraph 19 (Decision-making section)
Planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
✅ Why it matters:
The officer cannot lawfully suggest that past appeal decisions are more important than current material considerations (e.g. local unsustainability or site-specific harms).
🧷 R (Morge) v Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2
It is the elected members who bear the ultimate responsibility for the decision. They must not simply rubber-stamp the recommendations of officers.
✅ Why it matters:
Confirms councillors must make their own judgment, not simply follow officer advice — even if it is given by a Chief Planning Officer.
🔍 Summary:
In the case of the Beechlands Road decision, it appears that several councillors had genuine concerns about the site’s sustainability — including pedestrian access, infrastructure pressure, and distance to amenities. Rather than guiding councillors through a site-specific, policy-based balancing exercise, the Chief Planning Officer reportedly responded by referencing past appeal outcomes and urging them to “keep in mind” that similar refusals had been overturned.
This approach risks crossing the line from neutral planning advice into improper influence. It frames the application not in terms of its actual merits, but in terms of strategic inevitability, effectively discouraging lawful refusal. Such statements, even if subtle, may steer decision-makers away from their duty to evaluate site-specific harms under paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF.
Judicial Review does not challenge whether a decision was “right” or “wrong” — it examines whether the decision was made lawfully. If officers downplayed planning harm, diverted councillors from applying their own judgment, or discouraged refusal due to fear of appeal, then the process may have been procedurally unfair and legally unsound.
Taken together, the officer’s conduct may constitute:
- Procedural impropriety (due to pressure, tone, or framing),
- Misdirection of the decision-making body, and
- Failure to apply a lawful, evidence-based balancing test.
This ground is supported by multiple strands of policy and case law — all of which uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and independent decision-making in the planning process.